Rye or Pure Rye

Talk about Tennessee, American and Rye Whiskey here.

Moderator: Squire

Rye or Pure Rye

Unread postby bourbonv » Tue Aug 09, 2005 9:17 am

While working on the Taylor collection I have found that there was a big distinction in the 19th century between rye and pure rye. Pure rye was 100% rye made with rye malt and was the better class product. I know of only one product today that was made that way today - Old Portero. I wonder if the distillers will ever pick up again on this distinction.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby gillmang » Tue Aug 09, 2005 9:39 am

Mike, Lot 40 made by Hiram Walker, apparently the flavoring whisky used for the Corby label's Royal Reserve Canadian Whisky (a local blended whisky), was made with a combination of malted and unmalted barley. Thus, not 100 malted barley but closer than the current American ryes excepting Old Potrero. And in fact Lot 40 and Old Potrero bear a certain resemblance in taste. Lot 40, said to be 8 years old, probably is what Potrero would taste like if allowed to age beyond 2 or 3 years. Personally I find both products unusual in palate and in particular "feinty", i.e. a scent and taste akin to"paint thinner" or "varnish" is apparent. I realise many think this is a hallmark of 1800's rye but I wonder... John's 1930's-era Monticello rye tasted at last gazebo [John, by the way I like the new corn whiskey piece you posted recently on http://www.ellenjay.com] didn't taste at all like that and I would think was closer to a 19th centur rye spec than a current one. Ditto Dave Dogano's great Maryland ryes from the 1950's-60's tasted at the same event. These had a toasty, rich, clean and spicy (but not congeneric) taste. They did not taste like the ryes of today (possibly because today's ryes use more corn than the Maryland ones did) or the bourbon of today. They tasted of themselves, and I believe they are closer to an 1800's pure rye taste than Potrero or Lot 40.

My conclusion: I don't think the taste of Potrero and Lot 40 is the invariable result of using all-rye. There is e.g., the question of the cut taken (particularly with Potrero and Lot 40, both pot still products). Yes, in the mid-1800's there were many pot stills being used but I think distillers knew how to shape the cut to avoid what was called an "empyreutic" taste. That word, used in Byrn's Practical Distiller written in the 1860's in Philadelphia, means an off or vegetal taste, an oily or other bad taste that distillers tried to avoid. He indicates many ways to do that, everything from multiple distillations to flavoring the whiskey to filtering it. The other 1800's whiskey writers I have read made similar recommendations. The gent that sent a 1960's (or older) Overholt to that gazebo gave us the chance again to see what a classic high rye recipe would produce in only a four year old whiskey (or maybe it was slightly older then): again no taste resemblance to Potrero or Lot 40.

Even allowing for differing and changing grains, recipes and processes, all this suggests to me Potrero and Lot 40 probably duplicated the style of some rye whiskey of the 1800's, but not necessarily the best grades. For the historical purposes of Maytag and possibly also for the Hiram Walker employee, Booth, who distilled Lot 40, the palate that resulted in their respective whiskies was an intentional replication of the feinty-like palate. But in my view this flavour was not characteristic of all pure or other rye whiskey in the 1800's and likely did not represent the best of it.

Gary
Last edited by gillmang on Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby bourbonv » Tue Aug 09, 2005 9:52 am

Gary,
Not only is the malt in today's product not rye, but much of the recipe is corn. The van Winkle rye that is so popular is barely rye or almost bourbon, with only 51% rye the rest being corn and malt (and artificial enzymes in some of it). I wonder what a good pure rye made on a column still would taste like.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby gillmang » Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:00 am

I agree, Mike. I think an all-rye product made to what the highest standard would have called for in the 1800's would taste like the 1950's-60's Overholt I mentioned or Dave's Pikesville rye of the same era tasted at last gazebo gathering (Dave generously brought two Pikesvilles and as I recall one was less good, being a little mouldy-tasting, but the other was super-good, toasty and rich as I mentioned). The ORVW 12 and 13 year old ryes are very good but can be viewed possibly as bourbon-like drinks (and maybe themselves represent what some bourbon tasted like 100 years ago). Pikesville though made by HH today has a definite clean resinous rye taste, it may be closer to good 1800's straight rye made with all-rye than many other ryes out there today.

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby bunghole » Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:57 am

Does anyone have any old authentic Maryland or Pennsylvania straight rye whiskey mashbills they would like to share?

:arrow: ima :smilebox:
User avatar
bunghole
Registered User
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:42 am
Location: Stuart's Draft, Virginia

Unread postby gillmang » Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:48 pm

Well, in Byrn's Practical Distiller, written in Philadelphia, PA in the 1860's, he gives the recipe for rye whiskey as 80% unmalted rye and 20% barley malt. He says this gives a better yield than if all malted rye is used. He does not say his formula makes a better rye whiskey in taste but rather in yield which was his main concern. I believe that this recipe would have been widespread in the State, Pennsylvania, in which he wrote.

In a 1933 Fortune magazine article on the looming liquor trade, it gives essentially the same formula to make rye whiskey, i.e., there is no reference in it to use of corn.

But as Mike said some makers used all malted rye, there was a well-known brand called Montreal Malted Rye and possibly it was named after a process developed there to malt rye (not the easiest of processes). I believe malted rye was used because it made the taste better. Unmalted grains can impart a rougher taste, one can see this from Irish pot still whiskey. Maybe rough isn't the right word but rather oily, congeneric. For clarity, I should say all unmalted grains in the mash become converted to fermentable sugar by the diastase in the barley malt or malted other grains if used, but even though this "quick malting" occurs the taste still seems different as compared to a mash using all-malted grains from the beginning.

Some producers in PA used less rye: Overholt used I believe 64% rye, some corn and the rest barley malt (see Michael Jackson's World Guide To Whisky from 1988 which gives the exact - contemporary - Overholt mashbill). Michter's Original Sour Mash Whiskey used 50% rye. So there were variations.

I don't know about Maryland, I would think the mashbills were similar to those of Pennsylvania but I am not sure.

John Lipman (where art thou?) may know and he is preparing an article on East Pennsylvania and Maryland rye whiskeys which may contain more precise information. This hasn't appeared on his site as yet but I note John has a new article just up, on corn whiskey and white lightning. Good work, John.

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby bunghole » Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:46 pm

Gary,

My good brother, Johnny L., knows much more than he will tell. I'll just have to wait and see just what he will say. :wink:

:arrow: ima :smilebox:
User avatar
bunghole
Registered User
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:42 am
Location: Stuart's Draft, Virginia

Unread postby dgonano » Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:13 am

Well only one bottle of Pikesville survived the Sampler, and it was the moldy tasty rye. I hope yhe other turns up next month. The folks at Majestic Distilley should know the mashbill as they distilled for the Pikesville brand for many years.

I did receive some Prohibition era rye from a dear friend. Some Thompson Rye and Monticello Rye. Both were distilled in 1917 and bottled during the dry period for Medicinal purposes. Somehow the whiskey was misplaced and later discovered by the Merle family upon their acquisition of Standard Distillers. I will post my photos.
Attachments
DSC00726.JPG
DSC00726.JPG (133.27 KiB) Viewed 14333 times
Dave G.
dgonano
Registered User
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:35 am
Location: Baldwin, Md

Unread postby dgonano » Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:26 am

The Sam Thompson was distilled spring of 1917 and bottled spring 1928 by the C. M. Johnston Distillery for Thompson.
Attachments
DSC00731.JPG
These are unopened bottles.
DSC00731.JPG (42.9 KiB) Viewed 14320 times
DSC00730.JPG
DSC00730.JPG (38.53 KiB) Viewed 14320 times
Dave G.
dgonano
Registered User
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:35 am
Location: Baldwin, Md

Unread postby dgonano » Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:31 am

The Monticello was distilled in the spring of 1917 and bottled in the spring of 1926 by Thompson for Monticello. It was issued unti 1934 and it states it was made 15 years ago. But the whiskey was only 11 years old.
Attachments
DSC00727.JPG
DSC00727.JPG (28.9 KiB) Viewed 14311 times
DSC00728.JPG
DSC00728.JPG (31.76 KiB) Viewed 14310 times
DSC00729.JPG
DSC00729.JPG (39.28 KiB) Viewed 14310 times
Dave G.
dgonano
Registered User
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:35 am
Location: Baldwin, Md

Unread postby dgonano » Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:35 am

I found this in the box and at first I was at a loss as to the identity of this object. I do believe it was the key to unwrap the metal closure.
Attachments
DSC00732.JPG
DSC00732.JPG (18.72 KiB) Viewed 14306 times
Dave G.
dgonano
Registered User
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:35 am
Location: Baldwin, Md

Unread postby bourbonv » Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:17 am

Great photos Dave. If you plan to keep them full, don't let John see those full bottles in person because he can be quite persuasive and they will be quickly opened and sampled "for knowledge's sake". Of course he will share some of his bottles as well and a good time will be had by all...


It is interesting that they all say "pure rye" on the label. I wonder if that term meant the same thing in the 20th century as it did in the 19th? It could be reference to 100% rye or it could be more of a reference to the Pure Food and Drug Act. Do you know?

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby gillmang » Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:19 pm

Wow, great stuff. I agree these must be tasted but Dave you've been too generous in the past to bring the like to gazebos (especially when one "disappeared" unexplained). If you are minded to open them or one of them in your own home I know many here would be interested to hear your taste notes. These would be especially revealing because by now I know you've tried a number of other older ryes and also numerous current ryes, so you can place them in context. I always wonder if the next one opened will taste exactly like, say, ORVW 12 year old. I think that is possible.

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby dgonano » Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:59 pm

According to James H. Bready in his article titled " Maryland Rye: A Whiskey the Nation Long Fancied--But Now Has Let Vanish" he cites the 1906 Wiley Act(P,F,& D Act) as changing the image of Maryland Rye. Many brands changed their labels to read " Maryland Whiskey" or"Whiskey-A Blend . Those that kept the term "Pure" were of course "Straight Whiskey" and ,as you know, only had to contain at least 51% rye mash.

Thus many did not bother to meet the new standards. From this I gather that before 1906 many ryes were blends or rectified whiskies of unknown origins. The article mentions that post 1906 Maryland whiskey was 9% "Bottled in Bond," 20% "Pure or Straight Rye" and 70% "Blended".
Dave G.
dgonano
Registered User
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:35 am
Location: Baldwin, Md

Unread postby bourbonv » Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:11 am

Dave,
So was the Wiley Act a state law? It sounds very much like a precurser to the Taft Decision.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Next

Return to Non-Bourbon Whiskey

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests